E-health funds just the first click

Technology experts have given guarded support for the $466.7 million allocated for personal electronic health records, but stress far more is needed to propertly develop an ­­e-health system.

The Treasurer allocated the funds over the next two years with the aim of having a system available on an opt-in basis from July 2012.

The outlay fell far short of some analysts’ projections that a national e-health system will require a minimum investment of $4 billion over the next five years.

But some industry analysts were encouraged, as the spending is the first formal commitment to e-health since the federal government commissioned its national e-health strategy in 2008.

Deloitte technology partner Adam Powick, who wrote the government’s original e-health report, told The Australian Financial Review he was satisfied with the funding allocated.

“One of the missing pieces has been the need for a very clear, strong statement and leadership from the federal government. Once we’ve got that in place, I feel confident the whole industry will align itself behind that agenda," he said.

“The business case we developed did identify a figure of $1 billion to $2 billion over a number of years to really get significant traction around e-health in this country. But the amount that has been committed is definitely sufficient to meaningfully advance this agenda."

Related Quotes

Company Profile

The most important areas for advancement over the next two to three years would be primary healthcare, chronic disease management and self-management for patients, he said.

However, others in the healthcare technology industry have slammed the narrow scope of the project.

Gary Cohen
, chief executive of iSOFT, Australia’s largest listed technology company, likened the plan for individually managed ­e-health records to buying everyone new cars but forgetting to build any roads. “It’s a step in the right direction . . . but it’s a very small step along a long road," he said.

“I do fear that, without the construction of the supporting infrastructure necessary . . . this is potentially a wasted investment."

Without a technology backbone to tie all the records together, they would be of limited use, he said.

Ovum Research IT analyst Steve Hodgkinson described the decision to fund personal e-health records over a short time as “odd" without there being a commitment to longer-term funding.

It would be hard to create a patient-controlled, opt-in system without a firm commitment from the start to a core system that would help tie these records together in a meaningful way, he said.

Mr Hodgkinson has long warned of the potential pitfalls of fragmented databases and systems. There was a real danger that a personalised record system would simply add another layer of record-keeping to an already fragmented environment, he said.

“They seem to be delivering a short burst of money over a very short time frame – which means it will probably be rushed out the door – with no commitment to ongoing funding if it doesn’t work perfectly."

Mr Hodgkinson said he expected the system would be based on a web portal where patients and providers entered information that could then be collated and centrally administered.

“They wouldn’t be able to create a system that is integrated with all the different healthcare systems and providers in that kind of time frame."

But the chief executive of the National E-Health Transition Authority, Peter Fleming, said he was ecstatic about the budget commitment.

NEHTA was established to ensure computerised health information is compatible across state borders.It is driving the controversial program to provide all Australians with an electronic health identifier number.

“It will allow us to meet the objective of having the personal record available for everyone in that 2012 time line, which is what the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission was recommending.

“We can absolutely deliver on that with the funding in place," he said.